Linslade. Grieve for the trees.

And so the fight goes on!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html

"Grieve for the trees.

Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed
off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and
Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on the
Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local campaigners were
prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
destruction [3].

This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with
Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that
protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events on
the Public Highway and Footpaths [4].

South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth are appalled as this
infringement of the right to protest, as they had welcomed the
recognition of Bucks County Council in the High Court of the right to
protest. Yesterday, campaigners had also welcomed announcements that
Bucks County Council were promising firm public transport commitments
for the area, in response to the protests.

Local campaigner, Sean Kelly, said:

"I am absolutely outraged that Buckinghamshire County Council guards
physically prevented me from my right to protest as agreed at the High
Court just two days earlier. I felt like crying as theses beautiful
mature trees came crashing down for a road that will not provide a long
term solution to the transport problems of this area."

Local residents website about the protest is at
www.linsladeprotest.org.uk

NOTES TO EDITORS

[1] The security firm, Project Security, are a "anti-protester"
subsidiary of Reliance Security who lost the contract at the Newbury
Bypass protest in 1996 due to incompetence -
http://www.reliancesecurity.co.uk/ou..._projects.html

[2] The £50 million Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass is the
first of four bypasses, which will provide a dual carriageway between
Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. This is in one of the Government's 'growth
areas', with Milton Keynes set to have 44,000 new homes by 2021, South
Bedfordshire 26,000, and Aylesbury 15,000. Protesters believe that it
is the first piece of infrastructure to pave the way for the huge
housing development planned for the 'Growth Area'.

[3] Local man, Sean Kelly, can be contacted on 07768 481944. He has
been promised a written apology from Buckinghamshire County Council.

[4] On 1st February campaigners managed to overturn an earlier
draconian Injunction, granted in a secret hearing, that banned all
protests. In recognition of the right to protest, the Court allowed
protests and monitoring of works from the Rights of Way. Today, local
campaigners have been prevented from exercising this right and have
faced violence from security guards. See press releases on
www.linsladeprotest.org.uk for the background to the Injunction.

[5] South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth, and others, have opposed
this scheme for years, including through the 2003 Public Inquiry. The
protest started on 17th January when clearance work was due to start on
the scheme. Sixty local residents turned out to oppose the bulldozers.
Work was temporarily suspended when two women chained themselves to a
digger to prevent illegal felling of trees. A constant vigil has been
kept up by local residents, with a treehouse and camp established on
23rd January. Local residents have been engaged in conducting surveys
of local residents' views, and leafleting. A Public Meeting is also
being organised for 12 th of Febuary in Stoke Hammond village Hall at
7.30pm , in contrast with the last consultation by Buckinghamshire
County Council in 1982."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

> "Grieve for the trees.
but not the undemocratic protestors...

>
> Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed
> off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and
> Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on
the
> Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local campaigners were
> prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
> guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
> 2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
> destruction [3].
Anyone that takes 2 year old to such an event is a bad parent.
Esspecially if they themselves are trying to take part in direct
action. Leave the kids at home if you are considering doing something
unlawful (like trespass).

> This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with
> Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that
> protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events
on
> the Public Highway and Footpaths [4].
Perhaps this agreement also prevented the protestors from doing certain
things?

> South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth are appalled as this
> infringement of the right to protest, as they had welcomed the
> recognition of Bucks County Council in the High Court of the right to
> protest. Yesterday, campaigners had also welcomed announcements that
> Bucks County Council were promising firm public transport commitments
> for the area, in response to the protests.
Perhaps its the type of protesting thats causing problems? Getting in
the way rather than standing at a safe distance with banners perhaps?

>
> Local campaigner, Sean Kelly, said:
>
> "I am absolutely outraged that Buckinghamshire County Council guards
> physically prevented me from my right to protest as agreed at the
High
> Court just two days earlier. I felt like crying as theses beautiful
> mature trees came crashing down for a road that will not provide a
long
> term solution to the transport problems of this area."
Didn't the high court solution say the work could go on and the
protests could go on if they didn't get in the way? If so it sounds
like the protestors were trying to stop the work.

>
> [5] South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth, and others, have opposed
> this scheme for years, including through the 2003 Public Inquiry. The
> protest started on 17th January when clearance work was due to start
on
> the scheme. Sixty local residents turned out to oppose the
bulldozers.
> Work was temporarily suspended when two women chained themselves to a
> digger to prevent illegal felling of trees. A constant vigil has been
> kept up by local residents, with a treehouse and camp established on
> 23rd January. Local residents have been engaged in conducting surveys
> of local residents' views, and leafleting. A Public Meeting is also
> being organised for 12 th of Febuary in Stoke Hammond village Hall at
> 7.30pm , in contrast with the last consultation by Buckinghamshire
> County Council in 1982."
a lot of this contradicts other news stories that were posted to this
group over the last few weeks. Which makes me wonder about how
accurate the whole press release is.

The bypass is going to be built. The tree will be shortly removed.
Direct action won't change this. Following the correct processes might
have but possibly more people want this than don't so perhaps it was
destined to happen anyways.

Fod

doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:

> And so the fight goes on!
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
>
> "Grieve for the trees.

NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little take
up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

<snip>

>Local campaigners were
>prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
>guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
>2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
>destruction [3].
>
>This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with
>Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that
>protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events on
>the Public Highway and Footpaths [4].

I'm all for the lawful right of protest, and agree that the protestors
should have this. But the trouble is these protestors have gone beyond
that - by unlawfully obstructing the construction work. So we can't trust
them to suddenly decide to behave themselves - they have form.

Buck's CCs actions, and those of the security guards may not be right - but
they are perfectly understandable. I have little sympathy for the protestors
who have put themselves in this position by abusing their right of protest,
thus eroding any trust that they may behave themselves.

Remember who were being the bully boys (and girls) first.

<snip>

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
And so the fight goes on!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html

"Grieve for the trees.

Bit odd when you go to the link Dug gives, that the "mission statement"
gives a 404, whole website is mince

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message ...
And so the fight goes on!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html

"Grieve for the trees.

I can't find the reference off hand but I read recently that the amount of
land that is forested in the UK is the highest it has been for many years. I
did find this article from the BBC that shows that the amount of forested
land in Scotland is the highest since the 14th Century
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1941659.stm Far from being covered in
concrete the UK is covered in fields and forests. Just take a look out of
the window the next time you fly any where. I suppose you have flown in a
aircraft Doug?

Ian

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote:

> "Grieve for the trees.

No.

> Today heavy handed

Not that this piece is going to use loaded language. Oh no.

> security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed off the B4032 between
> Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and Valley Farm to fell mature
> trees,

I doubt that the security guards felled any trees.

> in a pre-planned raid

Oh dear, that language again.

> for work on the Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local
> campaigners were prevented from going to the area,

Good.

> and were man-handled by security guards.

Good, personally I hope they kicked their balls until they thought they
had mumps.

> One man was carried off the roadside verge,

Good.

> in front of his 2-year old son.

Tsk, tsk, takign a child to a demo, what apiss-poor parent.

> He was also prevented from taking photographs of the destruction [3].

Good, hope they stuffed the camera up his arse where it belongs.

So in brief what you meant to say was:

"A bunch of work-shy rentagobs was kept at a distance from tree felling
for their own safety."

BTW, drove down the A1 today, mile after mile of bypass work going on
along the route of the A1, no one seems at all bothered.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In article <cu0bct$d2r$2@aspen.sucs.soton.ac.uk>, njf>badger< says...
>
>
> doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:
>
> > And so the fight goes on!
> >
> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
> >
> > "Grieve for the trees.
>
> NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little take
> up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.
>
So in fact its not the cars fault for global warming but the greenies
who demand natural raw materials for everything.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

"James" <jamesb@spam.com> writes:
>
><doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
>news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googleg roups.com...
>And so the fight goes on!
>
>http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
>
>"Grieve for the trees.
>
>Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed
>off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and
>Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on the
>Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2].

Excellent.

>Local campaigners were
>prevented from going to the area,

Good.

> and were man-handled by security
>guards.

Tough titty.

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

njf>badger< wrote:
> doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:
>
> > And so the fight goes on!
> >
> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
> >
> > "Grieve for the trees.
>
> NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little
take
> up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.

You can't plant trees on a concrete bypass.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
> news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Local campaigners were
> >prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
> >guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
> >2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
> >destruction [3].
> >
> >This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with
> >Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February
that
> >protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events
on
> >the Public Highway and Footpaths [4].
>
> I'm all for the lawful right of protest, and agree that the
protestors
> should have this. But the trouble is these protestors have gone
beyond
> that - by unlawfully obstructing the construction work. So we can't
trust
> them to suddenly decide to behave themselves - they have form.
>
> Buck's CCs actions, and those of the security guards may not be right
- but
> they are perfectly understandable. I have little sympathy for the
protestors
> who have put themselves in this position by abusing their right of
protest,
> thus eroding any trust that they may behave themselves.
>
> Remember who were being the bully boys (and girls) first.

So you think the protestors should just stand meekly by the roadside
with placards while the bypass is built, assuming they are not moved on
by the police in the meantime? Fat lot of good that will do.

This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

Taz wrote:
> <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
> news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> And so the fight goes on!
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
>
> "Grieve for the trees.
>
> Bit odd when you go to the link Dug gives, that the "mission
statement"
> gives a 404, whole website is mince

Don't try and blame me, blame your own incompetence.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

Ian wrote:
> <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message ...
> And so the fight goes on!
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
>
> "Grieve for the trees.
>
> I can't find the reference off hand but I read recently that the
amount of
> land that is forested in the UK is the highest it has been for many
years. I
> did find this article from the BBC that shows that the amount of
forested
> land in Scotland is the highest since the 14th Century
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1941659.stm Far from being
covered in
> concrete the UK is covered in fields and forests. Just take a look
out of
> the window the next time you fly any where. I suppose you have flown
in a
> aircraft Doug?

I doubt that Scotland is at all typical and it says the trees are
harvested. Also Scotland is not exactly covered in roads.

I used to fly until I became concerned about the amount of pollution I
was causing. One of my memories is seeing an air pollution haze over SE
England as I flew into Gatwick.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message > njf>badger< wrote:
>> doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:
>>
>> > And so the fight goes on!
>> >
>> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
>> >
>> > "Grieve for the trees.
>>
>> NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little
> take
>> up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.
>
> You can't plant trees on a concrete bypass.
>

You can plant them next to it. They will grow into an acoustic barrier if
the noise from the bypass upsets any neighbours.

Ian

Ian wrote:
> <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message > njf>badger< wrote:
> >> doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:
> >>
> >> > And so the fight goes on!
> >> >
> >> >
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
> >> >
> >> > "Grieve for the trees.
> >>
> >> NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have
little
> > take
> >> up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.
> >
> > You can't plant trees on a concrete bypass.
> >
>
> You can plant them next to it. They will grow into an acoustic
barrier if
> the noise from the bypass upsets any neighbours.

They could have been planted there anyway, plus the area of land about
to be destroyed by the bypass.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

> So you think the protestors should just stand meekly by the roadside
> with placards while the bypass is built, assuming they are not moved
on
> by the police in the meantime? Fat lot of good that will do.
here we get to it. Doug want them to be allowed to do unlawful and
illegal things and get away with it. Can anyone see planet Doug or is
it to far away from reality. Peaceful protest won't do anything, we
want direct action! Oh wait, the police are stopping us, its just not
fair.

> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
actually very little, other than the poll tax, did much good.

War in Iraq - war still happened
Nuclear Weapons - we still have them
Women getting the vote - well WWI had more to do with it to be honest,
without that it wouldn't have happened.
Fox Hunting - Labour MPs don't like sport for the wealthy, removed more
because of class than hurting the foxes. ( which will still end up
dead)

Fod

In article <1107595525.486596.177340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
says...

> They could have been planted there anyway, plus the area of land about
> to be destroyed by the bypass.
>
Butthey wouldn't have been.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

In article <1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
says...

> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
>
Name one in the last 50 years.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

> I doubt that Scotland is at all typical and it says the trees are
> harvested. Also Scotland is not exactly covered in roads.
Why would it not be typical? England isn't exactly covered in roads
either, even in the south east. London has some pretty huge parks as
well so its not as if the cities are all concrete either.

>
> I used to fly until I became concerned about the amount of pollution
I
> was causing. One of my memories is seeing an air pollution haze over
SE
> England as I flew into Gatwick.
Could it be fog? The UK has a bit of a history of fog and rain you
know...
I can't say i've ever seen any air pollution haze over any airports
i've been to and i've been to a lot of really busy ones. Still air
pollution is something that needs addressed, though possibly by making
the planes pollute less.

> "Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".
Doug also wants to control and exploit people...

Fod

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6eaa9ddf65ec26989fa8@news.giganews.com. ..
> In article <1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
> says...
>
>> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
>> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
>>
> Name one in the last 50 years.
>

Why should it be limited to the last 50 years?

In message <cu0jid$me9$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk>
writes

>> and were man-handled by security
>>guards.
>
>Tough titty.

Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled.

That's what alsatians are for.

--
Steve Walker

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <cu0jid$me9$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge
> <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> writes
>
>>> and were man-handled by security
>>> guards.
>>
>> Tough titty.
>
> Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled.
>
> That's what alsatians are for.

Why should poor defenceless animals have to suffer injury and food
poisoning?

Brimstone wrote:

> Steve Walker wrote:
>> Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> writes:

>>>> and were man-handled by security guards.

>>> Tough titty.

>> Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled.

>> That's what alsatians are for.

> Why should poor defenceless animals have to suffer injury and food
> poisoning?

Well, there we are. A plain admission (from someone who presumably knows)
that idle lefty protestors are likely to be very cruel to animals.

Is there a Parliamentary Bill to ban their cruelty (inflicting injuries on
dogs and poisoning them) in preparation, does anyone know? After all, what
is sauce for the goose...

doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:

> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>> <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message

>>> Local campaigners were
>>> prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
>>> guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
>>> 2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
>>> destruction [3].

[ ... ]

>> I'm all for the lawful right of protest, and agree that the
>> protestors should have this. But the trouble is these protestors
>> have gone beyond that - by unlawfully obstructing the construction
>> work. So we can't trust them to suddenly decide to behave themselves
>> - they have form.
>> Buck's CCs actions, and those of the security guards may not be
>> right - but they are perfectly understandable. I have little
>> sympathy for the protestors who have put themselves in this position
>> by abusing their right of protest, thus eroding any trust that they
>> may behave themselves.
>> Remember who were being the bully boys (and girls) first.

> So you think the protestors should just stand meekly by the roadside
> with placards while the bypass is built, assuming they are not moved
> on by the police in the meantime?

Yes. It's all the lawful right they have (and even that assumes that they
are entitled to be on the adjacent land, which they may well not be).

>Fat lot of good that will do.

Nevertheless, it's all the lawful right they have (and even that assumes
that they are entitled to be on the adjacent land, which they may well not
be).

doug@zing.icom43.net wrote:

> I used to fly until I became concerned about the amount of pollution I
> was causing.

You *could* just take a shower before going to the airport.

A cold one if you don't want to use too much energy.

You'd need soap either way.

> >> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
> >> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
> >>
> > Name one in the last 50 years.
>
> Why should it be limited to the last 50 years?

Ok, can anyone give five examples with no time restriction. Has to be
whislt the country had the current style of government (because we are
talking
about direct action being used as the current system is failing)

five should be simple.

JNugent wrote:

> Well, there we are. A plain admission (from someone who presumably
> knows) that idle lefty protestors are likely to be very cruel to
> animals.

Your evidence for that assertion?

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
> > news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Local campaigners were
> > >prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security
> > >guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his
> > >2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the
> > >destruction [3].
> > >
> > >This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with
> > >Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February
> that
> > >protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events
> on
> > >the Public Highway and Footpaths [4].
> >
> > I'm all for the lawful right of protest, and agree that the
> protestors
> > should have this. But the trouble is these protestors have gone
> beyond
> > that - by unlawfully obstructing the construction work. So we can't
> trust
> > them to suddenly decide to behave themselves - they have form.
> >
> > Buck's CCs actions, and those of the security guards may not be right
> - but
> > they are perfectly understandable. I have little sympathy for the
> protestors
> > who have put themselves in this position by abusing their right of
> protest,
> > thus eroding any trust that they may behave themselves.
> >
> > Remember who were being the bully boys (and girls) first.
>
> So you think the protestors should just stand meekly by the roadside
> with placards while the bypass is built,

Yes

> assuming they are not moved on
> by the police in the meantime? Fat lot of good that will do.
>

Yup.

You have a right to protest. You do not have a right to force your opinion
on anyone else.

> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
>

And there are very many examples of people taking direct action in order to
commit some horrendous crimes. Which is why we, as a society, rejected
might-is-right "direct action" and replaced it with democracy (with maybe
flawed, but there is much less potential for problem than with direct
action).

In article <cu2a74$558$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Brimstone says...
>
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c6eaa9ddf65ec26989fa8@news.giganews.com. ..
> > In article <1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
> > says...
> >
> >> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
> >> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
> >>
> > Name one in the last 50 years.
> >
>
> Why should it be limited to the last 50 years?
>
Because anything older than that is pretty pointless.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

<doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1107586574.193149.262950@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Taz wrote:
> > <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
> > news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> > And so the fight goes on!
> >
> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html
> >
> > "Grieve for the trees.
> >
> > Bit odd when you go to the link Dug gives, that the "mission
> statement"
> > gives a 404, whole website is mince
>
> Don't try and blame me, blame your own incompetence.
>

Do you know what "a 404" actually is?

In message <cu2inu$g28$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Brimstone
<brimstone@hotmail.com> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> In message <cu0jid$me9$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge
>> <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> writes
>>
>>>> and were man-handled by security
>>>> guards.
>>>
>>> Tough titty.
>>
>> Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled.
>>
>> That's what alsatians are for.
>
>Why should poor defenceless animals have to suffer injury and food
>poisoning?

Ours used to have a pretty strong stomach. Probably prefer their food a
bit gamey.

--
Steve Walker

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6f141984476c46989faf@news.giganews.com. ..
> In article <cu2a74$558$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Brimstone says...
>>
>> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c6eaa9ddf65ec26989fa8@news.giganews.com. ..
>> > In article <1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
>> > says...
>> >
>> >> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of
>> >> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem.
>> >>
>> > Name one in the last 50 years.
>> >
>>
>> Why should it be limited to the last 50 years?
>>
> Because anything older than that is pretty pointless.
>

But it would still have repercussions. The Napoleonic Wars were two hundred
years ago but we still have to put up with Income Tax.

"Nathaniel Porter" <csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cu2vsh$lup$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...

> And there are very many examples of people taking direct action in order
> to
> commit some horrendous crimes. Which is

	#1
doug@zing.icom43.net	Linslade. Grieve for the trees. And so the fight goes on! http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html "Grieve for the trees. Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on the Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local campaigners were prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his 2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the destruction [3]. This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events on the Public Highway and Footpaths [4]. South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth are appalled as this infringement of the right to protest, as they had welcomed the recognition of Bucks County Council in the High Court of the right to protest. Yesterday, campaigners had also welcomed announcements that Bucks County Council were promising firm public transport commitments for the area, in response to the protests. Local campaigner, Sean Kelly, said: "I am absolutely outraged that Buckinghamshire County Council guards physically prevented me from my right to protest as agreed at the High Court just two days earlier. I felt like crying as theses beautiful mature trees came crashing down for a road that will not provide a long term solution to the transport problems of this area." Local residents website about the protest is at www.linsladeprotest.org.uk NOTES TO EDITORS [1] The security firm, Project Security, are a "anti-protester" subsidiary of Reliance Security who lost the contract at the Newbury Bypass protest in 1996 due to incompetence - http://www.reliancesecurity.co.uk/ou..._projects.html [2] The £50 million Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass is the first of four bypasses, which will provide a dual carriageway between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. This is in one of the Government's 'growth areas', with Milton Keynes set to have 44,000 new homes by 2021, South Bedfordshire 26,000, and Aylesbury 15,000. Protesters believe that it is the first piece of infrastructure to pave the way for the huge housing development planned for the 'Growth Area'. [3] Local man, Sean Kelly, can be contacted on 07768 481944. He has been promised a written apology from Buckinghamshire County Council. [4] On 1st February campaigners managed to overturn an earlier draconian Injunction, granted in a secret hearing, that banned all protests. In recognition of the right to protest, the Court allowed protests and monitoring of works from the Rights of Way. Today, local campaigners have been prevented from exercising this right and have faced violence from security guards. See press releases on www.linsladeprotest.org.uk for the background to the Injunction. [5] South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth, and others, have opposed this scheme for years, including through the 2003 Public Inquiry. The protest started on 17th January when clearance work was due to start on the scheme. Sixty local residents turned out to oppose the bulldozers. Work was temporarily suspended when two women chained themselves to a digger to prevent illegal felling of trees. A constant vigil has been kept up by local residents, with a treehouse and camp established on 23rd January. Local residents have been engaged in conducting surveys of local residents' views, and leafleting. A Public Meeting is also being organised for 12 th of Febuary in Stoke Hammond village Hall at 7.30pm , in contrast with the last consultation by Buckinghamshire County Council in 1982." -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net "Democracy is just another way of controlling and exploiting people".

	#2
Fod	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. > "Grieve for the trees. but not the undemocratic protestors... > > Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed > off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and > Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on the > Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local campaigners were > prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security > guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his > 2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the > destruction [3]. Anyone that takes 2 year old to such an event is a bad parent. Esspecially if they themselves are trying to take part in direct action. Leave the kids at home if you are considering doing something unlawful (like trespass). > This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with > Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that > protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events on > the Public Highway and Footpaths [4]. Perhaps this agreement also prevented the protestors from doing certain things? > South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth are appalled as this > infringement of the right to protest, as they had welcomed the > recognition of Bucks County Council in the High Court of the right to > protest. Yesterday, campaigners had also welcomed announcements that > Bucks County Council were promising firm public transport commitments > for the area, in response to the protests. Perhaps its the type of protesting thats causing problems? Getting in the way rather than standing at a safe distance with banners perhaps? > > Local campaigner, Sean Kelly, said: > > "I am absolutely outraged that Buckinghamshire County Council guards > physically prevented me from my right to protest as agreed at the High > Court just two days earlier. I felt like crying as theses beautiful > mature trees came crashing down for a road that will not provide a long > term solution to the transport problems of this area." Didn't the high court solution say the work could go on and the protests could go on if they didn't get in the way? If so it sounds like the protestors were trying to stop the work. > > [5] South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth, and others, have opposed > this scheme for years, including through the 2003 Public Inquiry. The > protest started on 17th January when clearance work was due to start on > the scheme. Sixty local residents turned out to oppose the bulldozers. > Work was temporarily suspended when two women chained themselves to a > digger to prevent illegal felling of trees. A constant vigil has been > kept up by local residents, with a treehouse and camp established on > 23rd January. Local residents have been engaged in conducting surveys > of local residents' views, and leafleting. A Public Meeting is also > being organised for 12 th of Febuary in Stoke Hammond village Hall at > 7.30pm , in contrast with the last consultation by Buckinghamshire > County Council in 1982." a lot of this contradicts other news stories that were posted to this group over the last few weeks. Which makes me wonder about how accurate the whole press release is. The bypass is going to be built. The tree will be shortly removed. Direct action won't change this. Following the correct processes might have but possibly more people want this than don't so perhaps it was destined to happen anyways. Fod

	#3
njf>badger	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. doug@zing.icom43.net wrote: > And so the fight goes on! > > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html > > "Grieve for the trees. NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little take up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO.

	#4
Nathaniel Porter	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com... <snip> >Local campaigners were >prevented from going to the area, and were man-handled by security >guards. One man was carried off the roadside verge, in front of his >2-year old son. He was also prevented from taking photographs of the >destruction [3]. > >This is in complete contradiction of the agreement reached with >Buckinghamshire County Council in the High Court on 1st February that >protesters could exercise their right to protest and observe events on >the Public Highway and Footpaths [4]. I'm all for the lawful right of protest, and agree that the protestors should have this. But the trouble is these protestors have gone beyond that - by unlawfully obstructing the construction work. So we can't trust them to suddenly decide to behave themselves - they have form. Buck's CCs actions, and those of the security guards may not be right - but they are perfectly understandable. I have little sympathy for the protestors who have put themselves in this position by abusing their right of protest, thus eroding any trust that they may behave themselves. Remember who were being the bully boys (and girls) first. <snip>

	#7
Steve Firth	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. <doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote: > "Grieve for the trees. No. > Today heavy handed Not that this piece is going to use loaded language. Oh no. > security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed off the B4032 between > Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and Valley Farm to fell mature > trees, I doubt that the security guards felled any trees. > in a pre-planned raid Oh dear, that language again. > for work on the Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Local > campaigners were prevented from going to the area, Good. > and were man-handled by security guards. Good, personally I hope they kicked their balls until they thought they had mumps. > One man was carried off the roadside verge, Good. > in front of his 2-year old son. Tsk, tsk, takign a child to a demo, what apiss-poor parent. > He was also prevented from taking photographs of the destruction [3]. Good, hope they stuffed the camera up his arse where it belongs. So in brief what you meant to say was: "A bunch of work-shy rentagobs was kept at a distance from tree felling for their own safety." BTW, drove down the A1 today, mile after mile of bypass work going on along the route of the A1, no one seems at all bothered. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

	#8
Conor	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. In article <cu0bct$d2r$2@aspen.sucs.soton.ac.uk>, njf>badger< says... > > > doug@zing.icom43.net wrote: > > > And so the fight goes on! > > > > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html > > > > "Grieve for the trees. > > NO! Better to plant new trees to take up CO2, old trees have little take > up and used for pulp/construction is better IMHO. > So in fact its not the cars fault for global warming but the greenies who demand natural raw materials for everything. -- Conor An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton

	#9
Huge	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. "James" <jamesb@spam.com> writes: > ><doug@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message >news:1107514013.441240.261970@z14g2000cwz.googleg roups.com... >And so the fight goes on! > >http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/304738.html > >"Grieve for the trees. > >Today heavy handed security guards from Reliance Security [1] closed >off the B4032 between Soulbury and Linslade between Dollar Farm and >Valley Farm to fell mature trees, in a pre-planned raid for work on the >Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass [2]. Excellent. >Local campaigners were >prevented from going to the area, Good. > and were man-handled by security >guards. Tough titty. -- "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

	#20
Brimstone	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1c6eaa9ddf65ec26989fa8@news.giganews.com. .. > In article <1107586325.603637.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, > says... > >> This country has a long historical record of direct action, much of >> which did good, or at the very least publicised an unheeded problem. >> > Name one in the last 50 years. > Why should it be limited to the last 50 years?

	#21
Steve Walker	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. In message <cu0jid$me9$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> writes >> and were man-handled by security >>guards. > >Tough titty. Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled. That's what alsatians are for. -- Steve Walker

	#23
JNugent	Re: Linslade. Grieve for the trees. Brimstone wrote: > Steve Walker wrote: >> Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> writes: >>>> and were man-handled by security guards. >>> Tough titty. >> Be fair, anti-road protesters should not be man-handled. >> That's what alsatians are for. > Why should poor defenceless animals have to suffer injury and food > poisoning? Well, there we are. A plain admission (from someone who presumably knows) that idle lefty protestors are likely to be very cruel to animals. Is there a Parliamentary Bill to ban their cruelty (inflicting injuries on dogs and poisoning them) in preparation, does anyone know? After all, what is sauce for the goose...